CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 mars 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 227 March 2019 Yavaş and Others v. Turkey - 36366/06 Judgment 5.3.2019 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Pensions halved following the transfer to the ordinary insurance scheme of contributors to an insolvent pension fund: no violation Facts – The applicants are pensioners. They used to be beneficiaries of a special pension scheme under the management of a specific insurance fund (for officials and employees of the “Ankara” insurance company). In return for the payment of contributions, during their working lives, amounting to double those of the ordinary old-age pension scheme, they were entitled to a significant top-up pension on retirement. In the early 2000s, as a result of the heavy deficit triggered by an insufficiency in the contributing workforce in relation to the number of pensioners (105 for 180), the specific fund was liquidated. Its pensioners were then transferred to the body which ran the ordinary social security scheme. Their pension amounts were then adapted: for the same length of contribution, the pension paid to the applicants was thus reduced to the same level as that of a pensioner under the ordinary scheme. Some of them saw their pensions almost halved as a result. They complained of a breach of their acquired rights. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Whether or not the fund in question could be regarded as a public institution, the following reasons led to the conclusion that the measure was not excessive or disproportionate. The aim of the reduction in the applicants’ pensions was to bring them under the ordinary pension scheme established by the social security legislation. The Council of Ministers sought to limit, as far as possible, any losses in the applicants’ scheme and to allow them to continue receiving their old-age pensions and various benefits. The adaptation method at issue did not appear unreasonable or disproportionate. While it was true that following the transfer and adaptation of their pensions, the applicants had lost part of the amount to which they were entitled –   up to nearly 50% in some cases   –, they nevertheless continued to receive pensions under the ordinary scheme without any discrimination and were not at any disadvantage in relation to the pensioners under that scheme. Moreover, the adaptation had not been retroactive in effect, and their length of service had been taken into account for the calculation of their statutory contribution periods. Thus the applicants had not lost the pension to which they had been entitled on the basis of the payments they had made during their employment, but only a benefit (a top-up) that they had previously been receiving from the insolvent fund. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (Contrast Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], 53080/13, 13   December 2016, Information Note   202 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes